Justice v. Mine Safety and Health Admin., No. 14-14438, 2017 WL 1230852 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 31, 2017) (Copenhaver, Jr., J.)

Justice v. Mine Safety and Health Admin., No. 14-14438, 2017 WL 1230852 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 31, 2017) (Copenhaver, Jr., J.)

Re: Request for records concerning defendant's investigation of plaintiff's administrative complaint

Disposition: Denying plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs

• Attorney Fees, Eligibility: Considering each of defendant's disclosures in turn, the court finds that "[plaintiff] is not eligible to recover fees related to the first disclosure" because "[plaintiff] has simply provided no reasons, arguments, or evidence for thinking that this disclosure resulted from anything other than the completion of a records search and the reasonably prompt disclosure thereof." However, "the court finds that [plaintiff] is eligible for fees with respect to the [second] disclosure" because "it can be inferred that [plaintiff's] claims helped in part to catalyze [the change to "the pre-2002 disclosure policy applying to miners like [plaintiff]"]." Similarly, regarding the third disclosure, the court finds that "plaintiff is eligible for attorney's fees with respect to work related to the disclosure of the two inspector MOIs." The court explains that "[i]t is safe to assume that, under the catalyst theory, but for plaintiff's litigation and the court's Order, MSHA would not have made the third disclosure."
   
• Attorney Fees, Entitlement: Again considering each of defendant's disclosures in turn, and noting that "the court has determined that plaintiff is only eligible for fees related to the second and third disclosures," the court first finds that "[w]ithout a showing of public benefit, [plaintiff's] FOIA request with respect to the second disclosure appears more akin to a 'substitute for discovery in private litigation' over the underlying administrative claim[]" and "[s]uch a situation . . . is not one in which a court is to award fees[.]" Second, regarding the third disclosure, the court finds that "[w]hile the MOIs may contain 'independent corroboration of the Plaintiff's protected activity' as plaintiff claims . . . information regarding plaintiff's specific activities does not confer a public benefit."